« Supper with a Hero | Main | Decency »

April 30, 2010

Well Now *There's* a Shocker For You....

Isn't this exactly what happens when a woman has frequent sex with the same man?

Touch causes our bodies to produce a hormone called oxytocin. Not only does touch stimulate production of oxytocin, but oxytocin promotes a desire to touch and be touched: it's a feedback loop that can have wonderful results. Oxytocin makes us feel good about the person who causes the oxytocin to be released, and it causes a bonding between the two persons. Nursing a baby produces oxytocin in both mother and child, and this is a major part of what initially bonds the mother and her baby. Even thinking of someone we love can stimulate this hormone; when women in good marriages were asked to think about their husbands, the level of oxytocin in their blood rose quickly.

There's more. Oxytocin plays a significant role in our sexuality too. Higher levels of oxytocin result in greater sexual receptivity, and because oxytocin increases testosterone production (which is responsible for sex drive in both men and women) sex drive can also increase. Moreover, this hormone does not just create a sexual desire in women, coupled with estrogen it creates a desire to be penetrated (that is, it makes her want intercourse). .. And while oxytocin can move us towards sex, sex increases production of oxytocin... [you can read the less fam-friendly parts yourself]

....The fact that sex increases oxytocin levels can be helpful for women who complain they "never feel like sex." Having sex, even when you don't have a drive to do so, will actually affect you in ways that will result in a greater sex drive. This also explains, at least in part, why many women find that the more sex they have, the more they want, and the less sex they have, the less they want.

The best thing is that it works both ways. A man is never so loving as he is when he's happy in bed. Use it or lose it, folks (said the deployment widow :p).

Posted by Cassandra at April 30, 2010 03:04 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Um ... some people love it when you talk like this.

Posted by: I Call BS at April 30, 2010 03:46 PM

Use it or lose it

Probably not the best suggestion I've heard, considering my present location and companions...

Posted by: BillT at April 30, 2010 04:43 PM

Probably not the best suggestion I've heard, considering my present location and companions...

Tell me about it, big guy :p

Posted by: Cassandra at April 30, 2010 04:53 PM

*looks at 10 foot pole*

*Opts for 50 foot pole*

Posted by: Rosie at April 30, 2010 05:06 PM

Link #1 suggests that oxytocin leads to a more empathetic response to various photographs. I wonder if it works the other way, too?...would an emotional book or move (for example) lead to increased oxytocin production? If so, that would lead to another positive feedback loop: emotional book/movie>>more oxytocin>>desire to read/watch more emotional books/movies>>more oxytocin>>etc

Posted by: david foster at April 30, 2010 05:48 PM

Thanks Cassandra for such a nice post. We really need a little good news, and better living through chemistry makes my day.

Posted by: James at May 1, 2010 11:03 AM

What if a woman has intercourse with a man but it is mediocre and unsatisfying intercourse? I wonder if the oxtocin creation and the emotional bonding with the partner still happens//things I've heard and read from women make me think that it does, that it's the penetration that does the bonding trick more than mindblowing orgasms. If this is true, it might partly explain why women often have a hard time getting over jerks who aren't even any good in bed.

Posted by: The Iconoclast at May 1, 2010 12:15 PM

Having sex, even when you don't have a drive to do so, will actually affect you in ways that will result in a greater sex drive.

Dennis Prager wrote a column once about how women should seriously think about having sex with their husbands even if they aren't "in the mood"

and he was slammed as "condoning rape".

Yet, really here again is something that substantiates common sense - the more you love, the more you can love! Act loving and you will feel loving.

Simpler -- as a kid if I was feeling pissy and grumpy and whiney (with no real good reason why) Mom would look at me and say "stop making those faces. Smile and act happy or I'll give you a reason to cry" ... not long after adopting a "happy face" I really WAS happy.

We give way too much authority to our feelings over us rather than to ourselves over our feelings. (hence "what makes a Leftist?")

Posted by: Darleen at May 1, 2010 12:24 PM

Looks at both Bill and Cass and starts to snicker.


That's what the president of Brazil said.

More sex.

Posted by: Cricket at May 1, 2010 12:28 PM

Stop looking at me in that tone of voice, young lady!

Posted by: BillT at May 1, 2010 12:38 PM

Darleen, I could not agree more!

Posted by: Cassandra at May 1, 2010 01:19 PM

What if a woman has intercourse with a man but it is mediocre and unsatisfying intercourse? I wonder if the oxtocin creation and the emotional bonding with the partner still happens...

Well, that is true for me.

When you've been married for 3 decades, it's not reasonable to expect every time you have sex to be a barn burner. There are times when I want to have sex but am too tired to be bothered worrying about an orgasm (it does take longer for most women). I still enjoy it. I enjoy the closeness.

But most of all I enjoy the connection - just touching and being touched, even if it doesn't lead to anything. I think we get out of the habit of just expressing affection physically. That goes a long way towards making the inevitable irritations that occur when two strong willed adults live together easy to keep in perspective.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 1, 2010 01:23 PM

The feeling of intimacy isn't limited to sex. There's various methods or situations that bring a woman and a man closer together that involves simple touch or body language.

Then there's hypnotic suggestion, which Obama uses. But simple confidence can produce similar, though less intense, results. People, I don't care who they are, usually pay attention to somebody talking with them if they are speaking of something of interest or if the person speaking has social or command authority.

It's not something that can be easily blocked out by the untrained. This puts people automatically into a state of suggestion.

Sex intensifies present feelings. But if there is no other activity that restarts the flames in the rest of the 24 hours, it is eventually going to die off once the chemical signals stop firing. Then once that gap happens, it'll grow longer and more awkward because they don't have anything in common in terms of special times together other than that. It's a sort of all eggs in one basket syndrome. A non-diversification and crash catastrophe issue. A point failure protocol.

A person has absolute control only over their own actions and feelings. But it is also true that our actions affect how others behave. Society would not be able to function if there were not rules governing the correct behavior for social beings in order to prevent one person from trespassing on another, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

It is a simple fact that when people don't want to do something, you will find it hard to convince them otherwise. Along with convincing people that they should do something they don't feel like doing, that this will then make them feel better, there also exists the option of inducing a change in thought and behavior in another person.

Again conversational hypnosis is one method of using instant like trances. But that takes knowledge and training that isn't generally available to the public, even if they were interested and motivated. In other respects though, if you can recognize ahead of time that a person is going into "power down mode", you can give them more energy by making them feel intense interest or attraction. This can be done with words, activities, music, touch, eye contact, synch in breathing, or any number of other things people do without thinking of it.

That's the problem. They don't think about it. So when things go haywire, they get angry and frustrated because they don't know what they are doing wrong. They don't know how their actions impact the interest or disinterest of a woman. The case also applies vice a versa when a man is in the Zone focused on one thing and the woman brings out the Honey Do list and the man then forgets about it almost as the last word leaves his lips.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 2, 2010 10:11 AM

If more people understood the fugue state hunters and snipers go into, along with all the other adrenaline inducing activities humanity has come up with, it would make a lot more sense to people when men act like words go in the head and out the head without the man paying any interest at all.

That's not exactly true. He isn't so much ignoring his woman and finding fault with her importance. Rather, he has a single focused objective that he is devoting all his attention to because that's how hunters, not gatherers, work to survive. If a hunter had ever been distracted by a bee or some stray thought (like woman problems), his hunting will soon turn out to "feeding the zoo animals".

That would have ended his genetic prospects pretty fast, I'd think.

Thus there is a very strong instinct, on the level of SURVIVAL instincts that is telling a man not to pay attention to distractions. They become aware of it when they sense it, then when the senses go away, they refocus.

It is an instinct that isn't at all bad, given the specialized roles for males: protector, hunter, fighter, laser scalpel, hunting dog, sniper.

But people are uneducated. I don't know why society doesn't do a better job of educating people. I suppose they're too busy teaching about Dead White Males being evil or some such.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 2, 2010 10:16 AM

On the other hand, when women feel too tired for sex at night, that's a byproduct of evolutionary process too.

There is a definite mental fatigue that comes from considering all options at once. Women are much better at parallel processing than men's mono track mind. Whereas a man usually finds it more comfortable to focus all his attention on the problems with highest priority (broken arm, lightning, thugs, explosions, fire) and then proceeding down the check list one at a time, a woman can pretty much think and solve all these issues at once.

There's a limit though. A person's endurance isn't infinite. And there's no reason for a woman to engage her adrenaline drive after a fatigue inducing day. Whereas men when they get that track on the track will focus all their attention on it, women may even wish to but feels constrained by all the other things going on in her head.

But, of course, when humans start actually doing something their minds will focus. Men may be specialized in this case but it doesn't mean men cannot multi task and women cannot focus. They are simply evolutionary triggers or instincts. humans still have free will.

On the other hand, you can induce another person to focus if they are intensely interested in something. Or if they feel good while talking or doing.

Energy is often a result of internal drive. When a person feels negative emotions and is always thinking of bad consequences, their motivation goes down. By redirecting a person's mental framework via your own actions, you can improve their energy, security, confidence, and motivation.

These are the same skills of any leader. For a man, it is not something of an esoteric art restricted only to people that think like women or are women.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 2, 2010 10:27 AM

*Sigh* I wish men's bodies released oxytocin the same way women's do. It seems a cruel trick of nature that they don't. I'm speaking as a single girl here, of course.

Posted by: singlegirlie at May 2, 2010 08:31 PM

Oxytocin has a special relationship with estrogen. Oxytocin is virtually powerless with out estrogen, and oxytocin's affects are increasingly powerful as estrogen levels rise. This explains why women are far more affected by touch than men. Women have much higher levels of estrogen than men....

Another interesting effect of oxytocin is that it decreases mental processes and impairs memory.

So... what does that mean? Is it only the good effects of oxytocin that are connected to estrogen levels, or both the bad and the good? I'd hate to think that the price of being sensitive to people's feelings was that you got stupid and were increasingly incapable of remembering things.

Although, to channel Ymar for a moment, that would explain certain qualities about the Left... "Campaign promises? What campaign promises? All I know is he's so inspiring. I just know he cares about me as much as I care about him!"

Posted by: Grim at May 2, 2010 09:14 PM

All kinds of emotion makes you stupid, Grim. No one particular chemical does anything by itself.

For example, take the adrenaline cocktail. I've had instances where I don't remember segments of an event because of adrenaline. There are time gaps and they tend to stand out pretty bright right afterwards, when everything is crystal clear except those moments. Looking back at it now, my brain has reconstructed most things but that's probably it filling in the holes by itself with made up stuff or reconnecting gaps with deductions.

A lot of the issues with campaign promises are not lizard or monkey brain orientated. It is more an issue of doublethink. The conscious suppression of dangerous thoughts or conceptions. I tend to think that uses logical brain power rather than emotional intelligence or survival instincts.

Once emotion and political identity is added to it, then it definitely becomes a monkey driving the bus issue. One doesn't need hormones for that, however.

Thus there are various explanations for why any particular Leftist looks dumb.

1. He's using 80% of his neo-cortex to suppress awareness of holding two or more mutually exclusive principles as both true.

2. His bus has been hijacked by a crack addicted monkey that is now directing what he thinks is true of the world.

3. His lizard brain has taken over and has redirected resources from low priority jobs like hearing and short term memory, to survival skills.

4. He has been hypnotized by Obama into accepting, unconsciously, what Obama says as absolute truth.

5. Severe mental pressure has triggered a mental defense mechanism designed to help humans function under intense trauma or stress.

Some of these options are more likely than others.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 2, 2010 11:35 PM

You know, I have a different experience of adrenaline: I can clearly recall every instant of the times when I've had the most adrenaline. This research seems to suggest that is common: 'Adrenaline is the glue of memory.'

Posted by: Grim at May 3, 2010 09:50 AM

Adrenaline functions differently for different people given differences in physiology.

It is not surprising that it works different for different people.

A list of 4 SWAT or police entry officers gave some interesting after action reviews of their perception of the entry.

The captain said that it took 2 minutes and he had a conversation (non-existent) during it. The author said it took 3 seconds. The other 2 team members said it took 1 second and "no time at all" respectively.

Then there are the accounts of the best entry people that do everything right, every time, but don't remember anything they did or why they did it.

Some people's Zones are obviously not all designed the same.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 3, 2010 11:46 AM

Also, Grim, the report you cite mentions long term memory. What I speak of mostly are short term memory.

It isn't memory that you use 6 months after, but memory right afterwards.

This has become the prevailing view in
the scientific community, so believe it.

The only thing I believe are what my neo-cortex tells me and what my lizard brain tells me. Everything else becomes negotiable, because it isn't something I'd risk my life on.

Absolute truth, as perceived by an individual, has many different variations but a key concept is doubt or consistency. If any part of your mind has even a single doubt or worry about something, then it is not an absolute truth to your mind. It is, at best, a partial truth or a conditional truth. Something you can assume is true and act upon it, but not something you'd put your life on.

Experience is a far better instructor of truth to individuals than simply authority (claims from authority).

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 3, 2010 11:56 AM

I've also noticed that there are different ramp up periods. It is as if the adrenaline cocktail changes based upon just exactly what is going on in terms of external stimuli.

There's a power up period, an action period, and then a power down period. Even if the adrenaline is already in your system and working it, what gear shift the brain is in isn't always the same. Sometimes it is fear and rage. Sometimes it is something else. Sometimes it is just a blank. Sometimes there is time distortion.

Because people's personal experiences will be different and they think are different, there will be variations. Some people tend to also have DNA differences. Maybe one of their ancestors were a berserker and somehow this berserker actually lived and his DNA is what gave him the edge. Maybe one of their ancestors had and developed a trait for eagle eye vision and command during war, and thus passed the DNA along. And it didn't manifest until the right conditions were met.

As a survival tool, adrenaline would naturally lower priority on feeling short term effects and remembering them. There's no point remembering that something is going to cut you or eat you, if you can kill it first. That's all that matters in the end, not whether you remember it or not. Cause remembering it doesn't mean you'll be alive to make use of that memory.

Long term memory is different, however. It does give a distinct survival advantage because it allows you to collect useful information from your previous experiences. Thus it is useful for survival to remember that whatever you did allowed you to survive. Thus motivating you to either do the same thing or prepare to do it better next time around.

Long term memory would also spark human imagination in the monkey brain. Thus allowing us to visualize how we could have avoided or won that situation quicker. Thus we could think of spears and traps and other things that we wouldn't have the energy or time to do in the Moment.

The long term memory doesn't have to be, in your case Grim, to include every detail. Though I suppose that would help. The question is, how much did you remember right after the incidents in question?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 3, 2010 12:06 PM

Also, I read some reports that said Obama used the NLP, anchoring, and conversation hypnosis techniques in his speeches.

This would make sense given his staunchest supporters see him as a messiah, a cult leader, regardless of what anyone else says. They are also the ones that view the entirety of his speeches all the time.

We do not, but even I noticed that there was something particular about his voice tone. I wouldn't have called it hypnotic, but it was relaxing.

Of course, I either had or have built counter-measures against charlatans and hypnotists. The lizard brain gets fired up at certain points and checks what is actually happening as opposed to what the monkey assures me is a "good deal". The lizard brain won't let anybody impinge upon my physical safety or tell me to do things that the lizard brain sees as dangerous or a threat. It has no social skills, really.

This would also lead to the implication that Democrats and Leftists, those who have given into emotional rage and political identity cults, due to their unfamiliarity with the lizard brain of survival and (In the Moment/Now time sense) thus listen primarily to the neo-cortex and monkey bus drivers.

If they were concerned about survival, they would do things differently in their own lives. And they often do do things differently. They advocate for weird marriages, while keep theirs strong in order to benefit their clan. They talk about forcing others to give to charity and to give up their money, but they themselves don't do it because their lizard brain tells them that this impacts upon their survival and their monkey tells them that it will impact their social status in the future. Or they might join monkey imagination with lizard survival and say that this will kill us eventually. But if their monkey brain is high on Obama's crack, that ain't going to happen.

Besides, if people live in the city, their concerns about personal survival and their experience with the lizard of Now isn't very good. They may feel very uncomfortable letting this "Primitive" (gun toting) part of themselves take charge of their decisions.

I'm almost certain that part of the drive against Sarah Palin is the personal insecurity issue of seeing somebody else being successful while allowing her lizard brain to take so many life impacting decisions. Many Democrats stake their survival not on their own personal skills or judgement, but upon institutional covers like the government or status symbols. Seeing somebody that has survived and even prospered, who doesn't do that, can be a very threatening experience.

Even in physical confrontations, it isn't their lizard brain driving the bus. They're not concerned so much about their safety and ensuring that nothing bad happens, as they are concerned that they, like Gates, are being "dissed".

Yeah, that was a really good thing to think about back when humanity was fighting sabre tooth tigers and trapping mammoths. I'll get em cause he "dissed me" lol.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 3, 2010 12:28 PM

I don't know anything about hypnosis techniques, but I make it a policy to always read transcripts of politicians' remarks. (Mostly because it's not worth the time to listen to them being delivered live; you can read it in a much shorter time.) I expect that, if such things as hypnosis techniques are in any way functional, reading transcripts would be an effective bar to their operation.

As for appeals to authority, I don't expect you to buy off on one; I'd be disappointed if you did. The research cited supports what has been my experience; but as you say, different people are different.

Posted by: Grim at May 3, 2010 12:43 PM

I wasn't directing those comments at you. It was more of a response to the article author.

After all, if he made it a point to tell me what it is I should believe, I should give him the courtesy of a direct reply. Even if he isn't reading it.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 3, 2010 12:58 PM

I expect that, if such things as hypnosis techniques are in any way functional, reading transcripts would be an effective bar to their operation.

People like Bookworm have noticed that when she read the transcripts and her friends heard the speech live, there was a really large discrepancy in their views. Of course, BW also doesn't like the sound of his voice, which I found interesting. She must be one of those natural people that can't be hypnotized.

As for background on hypnosis, I think you've been familiar with at least once application.

Pick Up Artists. Remember that?

They were the source of knowledge and experience that first clued me in on NLP, Linguistic Programming. I think it may even have been something Chomsky had been working on with his cognitive linguistics setup.

Interesting how these things tie together.

Back to the topic of adrenaline, do you remember what it was you remembered or did not remember right after the incidents in question, Grim? Also, could you rate their intensity in terms of personal danger or intensity of feeling?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 3, 2010 01:01 PM

The trick of creating an adrenaline spike and mental shift in the article you cited sounds like a good tip.

I think I've mostly been using it in kata-holographic training in order to facilitate memory retention of specific movements, balances, and how to reach human targets in a particular sequence.

I've never used it for reading, however. An interesting thing to test out, of course.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 3, 2010 01:06 PM

Well, it would explain why one always remember's one's first time best: in spite of the oxycotin, there's plenty of adrenaline to help map it to your brain!

I can't say I recall any specific differences between immediate and long-term recall. Then again, I wouldn't, since all I have left is long-term recall. :)

Posted by: Grim at May 3, 2010 01:43 PM

But you should have a memory of what happened afterwards. The power down time or the days after it.

Now, if you didn't think much on it at the time, then there won't be much material to go on now. But if you did, it should have went into your short term memory (because the threat should be gone or over) and now into the long term memory (because adrenaline would still have been present in the system 24-48 hours later).

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 3, 2010 01:59 PM

One of the issues with long term memory, witness testimony for example, is that the brain tends to fill in what it doesn't know based upon other memories, recollections, or it just plain makes stuff up.

I suppose that's why AAR are important. To time etch what people knew at the time, even if some odd years later their memories then change.

My memory, now, of time gaps isn't my memory of the event as it happened going into long term storage and me pulling it out. Rather, it is the time right afterwards where I reviewed my actions. That is what I remember now and that is what I remember back then saying to myself that there were immediate gaps apparent to me at the time.

My long term memory of the adrenaline event itself, directly, says that while some things are hazy, things progressed in a finite and definite continuum. My AAR, so to speak, said that there were noticeable gaps.

On a balance of trusting in hindsight or the AAR of the person involved, I put more weight on the latter than the former.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 3, 2010 02:05 PM